Matt,

Great advice.  A lot of the time moving back to basics is crucial for root
cause.  Often the basics are what is broken.  Because the configuration
below looks fine.

Regards,
 
Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
Mailto: [email protected]
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208
Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
eFax: +1.810.454.0130

IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand,
Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco
CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with
training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and
Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at
www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Hill
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:57 AM
To: Patrice Ngassam
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Issue with connected route

Hi Patrice,

What about using HDLC and not PPP?  When stuff "looks ok" it is often
best to remove as much "fancy stuff" as you can and work back and see
where it breaks...

In the case of MPPP not working start with HDLC, then single link PPP
(on each link), then MPPP then add authentication and other features.

Dynamips certainly does like to play funny buggers with L1 and clock
rates etc too, which certainly does not help :)

Cheers,
Matt

CCIE #22386
CCSI #31207

On 11 June 2010 16:42, Patrice Ngassam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> here R9 interfaces configuration, it's consistent with what I have on R6:
>
> R9#sh run int s0/1
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 138 bytes
> !
> interface Serial0/1
>  no ip address
>  encapsulation ppp
>  clock rate 2000000
>  ppp reliable-link
>  ppp multilink
>  ppp multilink group 1
> end
>
> R9#sh run int s0/2
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 138 bytes
> !
> interface Serial0/2
>  no ip address
>  encapsulation ppp
>  clock rate 2000000
>  ppp reliable-link
>  ppp multilink
>  ppp multilink group 1
> end
>
> R9#sh run int mul1
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 147 bytes
> !
> interface Multilink1
>  ip address 110.99.96.5 255.255.255.252
>  ppp multilink
>  ppp multilink links minimum 2 mandatory
>  ppp multilink group 1
> end
>
>
> Patrice Ngassam
> CEO NEN NET Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:39:30 +1000
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Issue with connected route
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
>
> Can we see the interface configs?
> No peer neighbor route or something like that?
> If you use hdlc on each link instead of ppp can you ping then?
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> Sent from my iPad
> On 11/06/2010, at 16:29, Patrice Ngassam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
> I tried Volume 2 - Lab3 using GNS3 and I am getting weird output. I
> configured MLPPP between R6 and R9 but they could not ping each other:
>
>
> R6>sh ip int br
> Interface                  IP-Address      OK? Method Status
> Protocol
> FastEthernet0/0            unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/0                  110.99.46.6     YES NVRAM  up
> up
> FastEthernet0/1            unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/1                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/2                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/3                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  administratively
down
> down
> Multilink1                 110.99.96.6     YES NVRAM  up
> up
> R6>ping 110.99.96.5
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 110.99.96.5, timeout is 2 seconds:
> .....
> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
> R6>sh ip route 110.99.96.6
> % Subnet not in table
> R6>sh ip route 110.99.46.6
> Routing entry for 110.99.46.0/27
>   Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
>   Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>   * directly connected, via Serial0/0
>       Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> R6>
>
> Same output on R9:
>
> R9>sh ip int br
> Interface                  IP-Address      OK? Method Status
> Protocol
> FastEthernet0/0            unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/0                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> down
> FastEthernet0/1            unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/1                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/2                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  up
> up
> Serial0/3                  unassigned      YES NVRAM  administratively
down
> down
> Multilink1                 110.99.96.5     YES NVRAM  up
> up
> R9>ping 110.99.96.6
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 110.99.96.6, timeout is 2 seconds:
> .....
> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
> R9>sh ip route 110.99.96.5
> % Network not in table
> R9>
>
> I could not find what's wrong !
>
>
> Patrice Ngassam
> CEO NEN NET Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:37:50 -0400
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Do I put my wic-1&2t's in slot 0 or slot 1?
>
> I used slot 1 and 2 to enable the configs to work better.
>
>
>
> This allows for faster pasting of configs.  This is the area that seems to
> slow down the most...prepping my lab for the study module.
>
> ________________________________
> De nouvelles Emoticones sur Messenger ? Téléchargez les Emoticones pâte à
> modeler !
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> ________________________________
> Vous voulez protéger votre vie privée ? La solution avec Internet Explorer
8
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
visit www.ipexpert.com

_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to